Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moments in Chromecast's history

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#301

Post by dragonwriter »

softfalcon wrote: post #246
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own the 4K Chromecast and it's pretty good. But in my opinion "Chromecast" was always a bad brand name. I guess it originated in the browser, but it's so far removed from that now; "Chrome" no longer makes sense.

Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end. Seems like the obvious choice. Is it boring? Sure. Does it immediately tell you absolutely everything you likely need to know if you're not already buying an Apple TV? Yes.

> Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end.

The reason Google TV didn't win (and the reason why it kind of did) is that Google TV already won for something else closely related, which this is being associated with:

https://tv.google/

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#302

Post by crazygringo »

lxgr wrote: post #24

Wow, even for Google, this seems like an exceptionally well-liked and popular brand name and device to kill. The replacement ("Google TV streamer") seems to be a quite different device – most importantly, one that will be very visible next to a TV, and not out of sight behind it like its predecessor. For anyone not particularly interested in having "AI" in their streaming stick (and this being Google, surely that wil…

> an exceptionally well-liked and popular brand name

I don't think so at all. I'm not sure if anyone I know outside of tech has ever even heard of Chromecast. It was never super popular. While every single one of them knows what an Apple TV is, and they know what the Chrome browser is.

The replacement makes much more sense. It's just branded as Google, and what it does -- it's a TV streamer. The branding tells you that it's Google's version of an Apple TV, while "Chromecast" told you nothing except that maybe it had to do with a browser (which it didn't).

Chromecast was always a bizarre name to begin with, since it didn't really have anything to do with Chrome. Chrome wasn't necessary to use it, nor did it run Chrome for you.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#303

Post by Zaskoda »

conor- wrote: post #277
ravenstine wrote: post #251

Chromecast used to be a great product. I had my gen 1 Chromecast for the last 10 years until recently when it got fried by this piece of crap TV I plugged it into. It was exactly what I want in a device: Do one thing and do it well. I decided to replace it with a new "Chromecast" device to find out that it bears next to no resemblance to the original. Today's Chromecasts are just wannabe Roku devices with actual cast…

I actually just bought a current gen Chromecast because I was looking for a "plug it in so I can watch YouTube on my TV" device similar to the Gen1 and was also dismayed at being forced to register/log in with a Google account and go through all of the hoops. I wish I had done more research and had I known that current Chromecasts are basically just a thin proxy of the exact same "Google TV OS" that ships on a lot of…

I recently bought two TVs, one for my sister and one for my father. My sister's has Roku built in and my father's has GoogleTV built in. Meanwhile my sister dug out an old game console and wanted to see if we could get it to work. Upon unboxing and attempting to use the new TVs, I found absolutely no way to access an HDMI port without going through the process of creating and logging into an account on each. My next TV will be a dumb TV.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#304

Post by Minor49er »

catapart wrote: post #87

I'm suddenly reminded to ask this community whom I assume might know: Are there any good "dumb tv" solutions out there? I'm thinking 1-4 HDMI ports, and a maximum of RF tuning and input-switching on the firmware. Products would be preferred suggestions, but I'm even at the point of considering DIY solutions, if something looks lego-ish enough!

Getting an Amazon Firestick and putting Kodi on it is a great way to watch stuff locally if you have a NAS full of media

Otherwise, look at getting an Intel Compute Stick. They are full PCs that plug into an HDMI port. Running VLC on these is a pretty good solution

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#305

Post by cubefox »

skiman10 wrote: post #62
aestetix wrote: post #8

So they are ending Chromecast, and also just launched the "Google TV Streamer" which seems to do the same thing, but "faster, more premium" whatever that means. Seems to be a reason to charge people more for the same thing but slap the AI label all over it. But that's just first impressions. Edit: and apparently the TV Streamer thing is twice the price of the Chromecast.

Twice the price with a chip from 2021. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-tv-streamer-processo...

> many reviewers praised the Amazon devices for having good performance, so the new Google TV Streamer likely won’t be a slouch when it comes to loading apps or scrolling through the homescreen.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#306

Post by alamortsubite »

ravenstine wrote: post #251

Chromecast used to be a great product. I had my gen 1 Chromecast for the last 10 years until recently when it got fried by this piece of crap TV I plugged it into. It was exactly what I want in a device: Do one thing and do it well. I decided to replace it with a new "Chromecast" device to find out that it bears next to no resemblance to the original. Today's Chromecasts are just wannabe Roku devices with actual cast…

Fingers crossed Google doesn't deliberately kill support for these old devices in Android. For a very long time, I've used my gen 1 to watch local OTA sports broadcasts on my hotel room TV when I'm overseas. I accidentally bent the HDMI jack pretty badly one time, but it still works.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#307

Post by somedude895 »

ravenstine wrote: post #266
hartator wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't have nice things indeed. An alt: Apple AirPlay works super well even with Android tvs nowadays.

Isn't AirPlay only good for screen casting as opposed to casting videos directly? My conclusion was that it's not feasible to use AirPlay to cast a video at the full frame rate and sound synced.

I use an app called Airflow on my Mac to stream local video files to Apple TV. It's $20, but lifetime license and it's been working fine through the years.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#308

Post by giantg2 »

Zaskoda wrote: post #303
conor- wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually just bought a current gen Chromecast because I was looking for a "plug it in so I can watch YouTube on my TV" device similar to the Gen1 and was also dismayed at being forced to register/log in with a Google account and go through all of the hoops. I wish I had done more research and had I known that current Chromecasts are basically just a thin proxy of the exact same "Google TV OS" that ships on a lot of…

I recently bought two TVs, one for my sister and one for my father. My sister's has Roku built in and my father's has GoogleTV built in. Meanwhile my sister dug out an old game console and wanted to see if we could get it to work. Upon unboxing and attempting to use the new TVs, I found absolutely no way to access an HDMI port without going through the process of creating and logging into an account on each. My next…

I recently picked up a dumb tv from an estate sale - 46" LED for $60. Cheaper, and for my use it's better.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#309

Post by everdrive »

ravenstine wrote: post #251

Chromecast used to be a great product. I had my gen 1 Chromecast for the last 10 years until recently when it got fried by this piece of crap TV I plugged it into. It was exactly what I want in a device: Do one thing and do it well. I decided to replace it with a new "Chromecast" device to find out that it bears next to no resemblance to the original. Today's Chromecasts are just wannabe Roku devices with actual cast…

It's a bit clunky, but the only real solution is just "a computer" with an old Logitech K400 keyboard + mouse combo. You won't be "casting," (although I suppose you still could) rather you'll just be using the keyboard directly. This is low tech but also sort of "bomb proof." A company can't sweep the rug out from under you, your setup will always work, and given that it's literally just a computer running whatever OS you want, you can perform nearly any task with this device. You might complain "but my embedded [company] product does X." Yes, but that product will be dead in two years, and they'll keep making the UI worse, and injecting more ads. Your computer will just keep working, and changing only as much as you let it change.
Post reply on HN